Monday, October 25, 2010

For the many people who may not remember Dr Mildred Jefferson, here's a little history of the early days in the pro-life movement, and one woman's role. Mildred died on Friday October 15th, but her legacy will live on forever. Just like Rosa Parks, she made a mark on her time.

Mildred broke the barriers of her day in 1951, when she became the first Black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, and then the first female surgical intern at Boston City Hospital. Later, she became the first female doctor at Boston University Medical Ctr. Have you seen her obituary anywhere? Most people will answer no. Why not? Because Mildred Jefferson lived her life as a pro-life hero.

In 1970, the American Medical Association resolved, that member physicians could perform abortions ethically in states where the procedure was legal. Mildred Jefferson rose to the occasion. She saw the American Medical Association's position, as an abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath, which admonishes doctors to "do no harm". In fact, Mildred said, "I am at once a physician, a citizen and a woman, and I am not willing to stand aside and allow this concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged and the planned have the right to live," she said.

Dr. Jefferson became a co-founder of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), serving as vice-chairman of NRLC's board, and then as chairman and then president from 1975 to 1978. She was a crucial lynch-pin in the early years which developed the right to life movement as we know it today.

During her tenure at NRLC, Mildred stressed the necessity for the pro-life movement to be a broad based coalition in defense of human life. She said, "We come together from all parts of our land, we come rich and poor, proud and plain, religious and agnostic, politically committed and independent ... the right to life cause is not the concern of only a special few, but it should be the cause of all those who care about fairness and justice, love and compassion and liberty with law."

In the annals of the pro-life movement, few will ever influence the movement as Mildred did, and continues to do. She was not quiet about racial genocide. She will take her place alongside other Civil Rights heroes.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

A Nobel Prize has been awarded to Robert Edwards, who is known as the father of the test-tube baby, and the inventor of in-vitro-fertilization (IVF). His Nobel prize was awarded for Physiology or Medicine for his IVF work.

What exactly is IVF, and why is there a controversy over the awarding of this Nobel Prize? Starting at the beginning; in-vitro-fertilization is literally fertilization in a glass. Why? Because the uniting of the sperm and egg is done in a petri dish. The sperm is most often obtained from masturbation; while obtaining the egg is more complex. Medicine can use powerful drugs to hyper-stimulate the ovaries, so that multiple eggs can be produced for harvesting. After fertilization, in the dish, the embryos are grown, checked for defects and often screened for sex and physical characteristics. The participants in IVF then choose, how many embryos to implant in the woman's uterus. Another technique for reproductive success is to implant an embryo or embryos, in a surrogate's womb. Henry Ford, the inventor of the assembly line for the Model T, would be proud. Now comes another dilemma. The embryos who appear normal are usually frozen for later use; although the participant may choose to discard any unused embryos.

To think that this technique of IVF is making dollars for clinics. I'm sure none of these dollars are being spent if there are complications for the woman; and there are complications. These complications go far deeper than mere physical. With IVF we have turned human beings into mere market products. Where's the natural process here, and how does that affect the woman's female physiology? It's all technology.

And what about the risks? IVF pregnancies carry a higher risk of ectopic pregnancies, as well as gestational diabetes for the mother, high blood pressure and bleeding, not to mention the severe health risks to the babies. More importantly, during the process, the parents are repeatedly put in the position of consenting to the death of one or more of their children because of an embryo who may have a defect or the wrong sex, or simply perceived as "superfluous".

Now, our society has awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Robert Edwards, inventor of the IVF. Commenting on the prize, Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said, "Without Edwards, there would be no market for human eggs; without Edwards, there would not be freezers full of embryos waiting to be transferred to a uterus, or more likely; used for research or left to die, abandoned and forgotten about by all." This is another example of medical science taking advantage of the heartbreak of humanity, by pitting the rights of the infertile parent against the rights of the child. Cardinal Antonellie, speaking on the Church's position on IVF stated, "The rights of a child dictates that a person cannot be produced, acquired and owned as an object for ones own self gratification".

Reasons why the Nobel Prize should not have been awarded, says Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carambula who said, "The scientist is regarded as a hero, but what he has really done is to create a market for manufactured humanity. This is not a gift to humanity; it is a death sentence to millions of tiny human beings, who are created only to be destroyed. Edwards' supposed great accomplishment has also created a means for the ultra-rich to tamper with every genetic aspect of the person, creating designer human beings." Brings to mind Henry Ford, who created an assembly line for his designer Model T car. This is a Nobel Peace Prize on a par with Al Gore and his desire to save the environment by eliminating humanity.

Monday, October 11, 2010

If you are a woman, do you really trust Planned Parenthood to be your medical advocate? Before anyone considers any medicine or medical procedure, shouldn't they participate in their own health care decisions? So why do women blindly trust that Planned Parenthood has their well being at heart?

On September 28, 2000, the Clinton Administration launched it's chemical warfare attack on unborn Americans, announcing that the FDA had approved RU486. Predictably, Planned Parenthood hailed this new chemical coat hanger. RU486, as a total victory for US women. Gloria Feldt, then president of Planned Parenthood, proclaimed that RU486's US arrival marked the "beginning of a new era" for American women. Since it's approval RU486 has not been in the best interest of women, much less their unborn children. In the first 8 years, the estimates were 900,000 babies killed.

Ten years later, and The Center for Disease Control has now revealed in the New England Journal of Medicine, that there has been 2 more deaths from RU486. This chemical abortion, in the form of a pill, has caused numerous complications - not only killing off the baby, but killing off the mothers as well, while Planned Parenthood continues a cover up that Al Capone would have been proud of.

Across the ocean in Australia the Aussies have reported a 4.1% complication rate, while in the US Planned Parenthood remains silent. A zero complication rate is statistically impossible. Even aspirin has complications for some.

In Iowa, a Planned Parenthood clinic is performing Telemed abortions. This method allows a doctor to interview a woman via an Internet video connection. After a brief interview, the abortionist pushes a button, opening a drawer the woman finds what she thinks is the answer to her problem. But it may be her death pill. It certainly is a death pill for her unborn baby. Is that the medicine American women believe is good for them? RU486? Are you stupid?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Boo! Need any scary stories for Halloween? The news is full of scary ideas for this Halloween season. Guess it's that time of the year. Halloween sarcasm aside; trial balloons are being floated over the euthanasia issue, under the guise of compassion. First, in England, a well-know British pundit, by the name of "Ms Ironside" (no joke), has suggested it would be kinder to smother a disabled child than to allow it to suffer or cause inconvenience to it's parents. She actually states, "Any good mother would smother a disabled child with a pillow because of the frustration that bringing up such a baby would pose." Are you scared yet?

She'd rather kill someone than go out of her way to help someone! Heaven help us! This is the utilitarian ultimate! It brings to mind a statement, "better dead than disabled"; and our society seems to be heading down that scary road. If you believe that all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering, we ought then to take note of such scary ideas as this, coming out of Britain. Are ya scared yet?

In the US, Dr. Tonimarie Vincent of N. Carolina, states, "A death panel is one doctor. The American public does not understand this. You can go into an emergency room for an acute condition, and if you have a chronic diagnosis that already exists, the doctor will look at you, and if you're elderly, or you don't have the right insurance, they'll simply say: "Well, it's just not worth treating the patient." "That's the death panel. Therefore, they're executing the futility protocol and they're saying: "This is a futile case, the patient is going to die anyway, they have a chronic condition, forget the acute condition that brought them in here, let's just not treat them." "So, whether the health care provider practices slow medicine, exit treatment or whatever, they just won't provide the patient with the care they need." Scared yet? " Quoting a line from the movie "The Fly", you better - "be afraid, be very afraid!"

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Is Rahm Emanuel on a mission to ransom captive Chicago. On second thought, is his mission to hold Chicago ransom for the Democrats in 2012. It seems a little strange that Rahm, who knows election law as well as electioneering, would think that he could win the mayoral election. However, stranger things have happened in Chicago, especially when the dead vote, early and often.

All Kidding aside, Rahm Emanuel is a highly intelligent and formidable foe. He knows how to play politics well. His job with Obama was secure, we think. His ambition has always been to be the Speaker of the House of US Representatives. Hmmmmm. In the lyrics of John Lennon ... "Imagine". Hmmmmm. Why has he really returned? What is the rest of the story? Skull duggery is my guess.

Rahm Emanuel is brilliant, vulgar, pro-abortion and a true Democrat. The Democrats are an endangered species for the 2010 mid-term elections. This makes it imperative that Chicago votes correctly (that's democratic) in 2012. Not sure if Obama will be the party pick. But let's say he is; he's counting on his good friend to bring home the vote in Chicago.